A bunch of useless crap
A bunch of MY opinions
Published on June 12, 2004 By MasonM In Politics
WARNING: This is an article about generalities with regard to political ideologies.This article contains MY personal observations, opinions, and conclusions. It is all based solely on things I have observed personally and is not supported by sources other than my own observations (It's called thinking for yourself) It is just chock full of generalities. If that bothers you, stop here and move on to another article.


I read articles and discussions written from both left and right wing perspectives. I listen to various opinions and debates on the radio and television. I observe, listen, and draw conslusions based upon what is said and how it is presented. I prefer to form my own opinions based on verifiable facts and information instead of just "what someone else says" I should think.

If someone says something, I'll check it out and weigh it against available information and what I already know.

In observing the discussion, debates, articles, and oher communications from both sides of the political spectrum I have drawn some conclusions regarding the general styles and ideas of both sides.

Liberal: It seems to me that the bulk of the arguments from the left seem to be based heavily upon feelings and emotions. Often, the arguments lack much in the way of substance and seem to be more of a "Our way is much more humane, tolerant, fair, and enlightened than yours. We know what's best so you should think this way and do these things."

Often the "facts" presented are either flatly untrue, or more often only "half truths" taken out of context and skewed to support an argument that otherwise would be unsupportable.

The biggest thing I have noticed from the left is a venomous intolerance of opposing views. I see much more hateful diatribes spewing from the left. They claim to be standing up for tolerance and yet are extremely intolerant themselves. They employ scare tactics and misinformation and when challenged by verifiable facts fall back on emotional rhetoric and accusations ranging from racism to homophobia (totally misusing the word) to lieing about the facts which are easily verified. Sometimes it seems they are unwilling to investigate the real facts for fear of being forced to change their minds.


Conservative: The right does tend to rely more on verifyable facts upon which to base their arguments but are often guilty of ignoring the "human factor". To me, I see them more concerned about themselves than their fellow human beings.This is the impression I often get from them.

I see a far more rational argument style from the right, and a good deal more tolerance of the opposition's views. Tolerance does not equate with agreement, simply respect for the right of someone to have an opposing view. The right seems far more interested in protecting the rights of all citizens instead of just the rights of a select group, while at the same time addressing the realities of the world.

Their debating style is far less based upon emotion than it is factual information although I have seen them become enraged when faced with emotionally based arguments which can't be reasoned with.


The right appears to me to be far more supportive of the ideas of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. The old "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" idea.

The right seems to be much more corporately oriented and money driven. They, in my opinion, are far more likely to support the goals of the wealthy than the poor. I see them as being guilty of elitism and classism at times, seeing the poor as more of a burden than anything.

But, frankly,, the bulk of the productive work is accomlished by the right. They spend far more energy on the practical side of things than the idealistic.


All in all, I don't see either side in a very good light as I see the real, practical, and best solutions to things to be somewhere in between these two ideologies. My personal ideology lies a little right of center in a good many areas, and a little left of center in some other areas. I like to thing that on the whole I'm just about at the center.

Perhaps if people spent less time and energy worrying about "left" and "right" and just got together to hammer out real, substantial, and workable solutions to things we just might actually progress. I think a great many good solutions to problems get chucked to the wayside in the name of ideology. The left refuses to work with the right and visa versa.

Oh, and if people would just stick to the facts instead of ideological smokescreens (both sides) intended to advance their own agenda, things would move along much better.

Again, these are MY opinions and conclusions based solely on my personal observations and thinking. I am quite sure that there are plenty of anecdotal examples to contradict the things I said regarding either side but I am speaking in generalities here. I know, generalities drive some people nuts. Oh well, this is an article about generalities. And, after all, the views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of, well, anyone else.

Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 13, 2004
Kingbee: Are you suggesting that the term Fascist is somehow a specific meaning term and not just some nasty slur? I doubt Muggaz even knows what a fascist is given the contexts he's used it. I take the term fascist as a pretty serious insult and not at all useful in forwarding a discussion.
on Jun 13, 2004
I consider the word fascist up there with "nigger" and "faggot" quite easily.


Why? Fascist is a real political term that refers to a real right-wing + big government + symbolist ideology. It can be used correctly, but often falls down a slippery slope: Bush is far less fascist than Mussolini, but he still exhibits some of the same characteristics, ie. he's right wing but also big government and very symbolist. 'Nigger' and 'Faggot' are terms solely used to diminish and discredit blacks and gays. They have no application to common, descriptive language. They are useless unless they are used as offensive slang. Sometimes they are used jokingly, ironically, or demonstratively.

I've seen a right winger at this site use the term 'fagot' to describe gays. His name was Marvin Cooley. Elsewhere, in deeper gutters of the internet, I see them use these terms all the time. I sense you are very sheltered from, or have turned a blind eye to the conduct of many of your ideological kinfolk, because the definately use these terms when they get emotional, and they definately get emotional in situations where they are outnumbered or trolling.

Anyway, you obviously think conservatives don't frequently confuse their opinions for facts, and for that you are wrong again. You are a fool Brad, and your naive comments in threads like these do damage your credibility.


on Jun 13, 2004
Are you suggesting that the term Fascist is somehow a specific meaning term and not just some nasty slur

not at all. i was responding to your qualification of my post about the meaning of empathy

my take on racial slurs is below that. racial slurs are used to dehumanize people. name calling is insulting but not in the same park. commie is other side of the fascist coin because both advocate totalitarian systems no? what makes them particularly insulting is the presumption on the part of the name-caller that he or she is able to deduce anothers political orientation based on subjective deduction. as in categorizing another's political stance on the basis of a comment that is intentionally as well as objectvely apolitical nyuknyuk!
on Jun 13, 2004

Nobody wants to be described as a fascist any more than they want to be described as a nigger. It's a nasty epitaph.

As for calling me a "fool", only a "fool" makes such personal attacks against the owner of the site.

on Jun 13, 2004




The definition of fascism:


dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism


Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Doesn't sound accurate to me. To call somebody a fascist that doesn't even support fascism speaks more ill of the person who calls somebody a fascist than the person who supposedly is a fascist.

on Jun 13, 2004
Let's see. People who are liberal and for big government in the most subtle way... Can they be compared to Stalin?
on Jun 13, 2004

As for calling me a "fool", only a "fool" makes such personal attacks against the owner of the site.



I swear I've heard that before. If you want to silence me, you can do that, can't you, but that would make you Stalin. I'm honestly not worried about my rating.

Editor's note: No, what it means is that the owners of the site don't have to put up with crap. And honestly, we're not worried about people like you accusing us of being "stalin" or "censors". Considered yourself censored.

on Jun 13, 2004
find it particularly disgusting that you excuse your own nastiness while accusing me of name-calling. Where am I calling you or anyone a name here?


Please re-read my post...

I have not excused myself... and I never said you were calling anyone names... in fact, I pretty much was supporting you in the fact that name calling wont get anyone anywhere... maybe conforming to your pre-judged opinion of me doesn't help you at times Brad...

I doubt Muggaz even knows what a fascist is given the contexts he's used it.


And for everyone's sake, we will say I dont know what a fascist is, because I am obviously a simpleton, because you say so... words I also dont know are 'civility' and 'peanut'

BAM!!!
on Jun 14, 2004

I think you use the term fascist as a crude insult to attack those you feel are infringing any freedoms. That's not using the term in any sort of scientific or precise manner, you just used it as a flame word in the same sense some people use the term "fag" or "nigger" to offend people.

MOST people who use the term fascist don't really know what the precise definition of it is.

Getting back to the point: When it comes to name-calling, the left definitely seems to do that more than right-wingers. Certainly here.  Saint Ying regularly name-calls people including me. 

The left talks about tolerance but I see little tolerance. I think when they talk about tolerance what they really want is tolerance for their behavior since their behavior tends to be so unreasonable.  Saint Ying, for instance, has relied on my tolerance to allow him to go from article to article personaly attacking those who have the audacity to disagree with him.  He doesn't just put up arguments and evidence, he literally insults his opponents as personally as possible. And if his opponents respond or take action, he'll start crying "You're being a Stallin" even as he admits to having been warned in the past about not making personal attacks.

Ultimately, that is the key difference i see between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives TEND to behave in ways that seem mindful of the repricussions.  Liberals (if that word even applies, more like self-proclaimed elitists) tend to believe that because of their own righteousness that they should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The protest group screaming against the evils of capitalism and globalism can't be held responsible if their actions slow down the enacting of policies that could help the third world because they had noble deeds.  Saint Ying doesn't have to behave to civilized norms on a message forum because he has "correct" opinions. Nevermind what kind of website it would become if EVERYONE behaved as he did.

I write very harshly often in my message posts. But I try not to gratuitiously insult my opponents -- even though I could with impunity. I try to treat others as I myself would like to be treated (though I have no problem jumping into the mud with my opponent too <g>).

on Jun 14, 2004
The protest group screaming against the evils of capitalism and globalism can't be held responsible if their actions slow down the enacting of policies that could help the third world because they had noble deeds


I once saw a bunch of students at a anti-globalisation protest in Melbourne... wearing Nikes, drinking Coke... I asked them why they were at the protest... they said they got a day off school...

This isn't the first time I have agreed with you on this issue Brad... it holds true for both parties though... both Liberal's and Conservatives will always be their own worst enemies, because some loose cannon from either party will let loose on behalf of said party, and almost always inadvertantly do more damage than good... i.e. Saint Ying calling you fool, or Marvin Cooley calling someone a 'faggot'

Perhaps you might think of those that you call 'kook' so often - remember how you feel when you get called a fascist, and perhaps reconsider calling someone a kook?

BAM!!!
on Jun 14, 2004
for the third time...my post about precision of meaning had nothing--as in zero, none, nil-- at all to do with name-calling or racial slurs by anyone here or anywhere else.

it was inspired by a totally different issue (i was trying to explain why i was not intending to be condescending to jill or anyone else by suggesting she might be inadvertantly blurring the line between two similar but distinct states of being).

i commented in a separate post that i had not seen anyone from any side of the political spectrum using racial slurs here--with the exception of some anonymous idiot. unfortunately thats changed now. and im guessing that the next time some other idiot uses that particular word as a search term in google itll refer him or her to ju. and thats a real fuckin shame folks.
on Jun 14, 2004

I'm not really sure why we have to force people into a categorization of being liberal or conservative.  I have more liberal views than conservative, but because I have a few views that are strong conservative, I am always labeled conservative.  I typically vote republican, but that doesn't make me a "strict" republican.  I basically vote for the candidate that seems most likely to run our country best, it really doesn't matter if they are republican or democratic. 

A few things that bother me about modern day "liberalism" is that it is very different from the 70's.  In the 70's, all the movements were for more freedom and less government.  To allow people to live how they wanted.  Today's "freedom" consists of wanting so much government involvement that nobody has freedom.  If all the liberal ideals came true, we would have more welfare funds, socialized medicine, more environmental regulations, strict gun control, etc.  That's not liberal, that's socialism.  I'm all for the liberalism of the 70's.  The "help thy neighbor" living.  But, new liberalism just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I don't want that much government.  Liberals say that the conservatives are the ones for more government, but really, it's the other way around. 

Somebody questioned Brad saying that most businesses are run by conservatives.  Since liberals are against capitalistic leanings, and a business owner needs to be capitalistic, then a successful business would most likely be run by a conservative.

on Jun 14, 2004
not necessarily always
on Jun 14, 2004
Just a few thoughts of my own here:

1)"The biggest thing I have noticed from the left is a venomous intolerance of opposing views. I see much more hateful diatribes spewing from the left."
Ever hear of McCarthyism or listen to a Rush Limbaugh program? And how many times have conservatives questioned the patriotism of liberals that disagree with them? Not that I'm denying that liberals aren't guilty of this as well, but to single them out for it seems a bit simplistic.

2)"By automatically labeling dissenters as racists, bigots, etc., they completely dismiss the others' points of view, no matter how valid." (little_whip)
Which is no worse than when conservatives label liberals as unpatriotic or anti-American just for disagreeing with them. For the record, I love this country- I think we do a larger percentage of things correctly than almost any other country. But for me, loving one's country should not blind a person to its faults, for we cannot improve until we recognize them. Patriotism means wanting what is best for our country, not only this generation, for those that follow as well, and I don't this can be acheived by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that we're faultless. For example, we have too often let business interests and realpolitik guide our foreign policies with little regard as to who else got hurt in the process. I think America can be and do better than that by remembering the old saw about reaping what one sews.

3)"i find rabid secular liberals to be the biggest 'hate' group of all." (little_whip)
Really? I would consider groups that burn crosses in people's lawns, or advocate shooting doctors that perform abortions, or call for bombing the Middle East back to the Middle Ages, even more hate-filled.

4) "They hate heterosexuals...." etc, etc, etc (little_whip)
Perhaps you could show how fair and balanced you are by starting a list of all the things Rush Limbaugh hates?

5) "Check out the Libertarian Party." (little_whip)
The problem I have with the Libertarian Party is they want all the rights with none of the responsiblity.

6) "Conservatives TEND to behave in ways that seem mindful of the repricussions [sic]." (Draginol)
From my personal experience, a more accurate statement might be "conservatives TEND to behave in ways that they don't have to suffer from the repercussions of their actions".

And a side note to Saint Ying: it is possible to disagree with someone, yet treat them with respect. As much as I agree with much of what you say, calling people a "fool" or anything else does not advance your position. On the contrary, it makes others more likely to tune you out, regardless of how well reasoned your arguments might be otherwise. Such ad hominems have no place in proper debate and if you want people to take you seriously, then hopefully you'll consider abandoning such tactics. Thank you, and have a nice day.

on Jun 15, 2004

4) "They hate heterosexuals...." etc, etc, etc (little_whip)
Perhaps you could show how fair and balanced you are by starting a list of all the things Rush Limbaugh hates?

How about you list the things you THINK Rush Limbaugh hates? Limbaugh is many things but hateful isn't one of them.

4 Pages1 2 3 4